OA090822013

The ECO refused entry clearance for reasons explained in a decision dated 18 January 2013. The appellant filed grounds of appeal to the First-tier Tribunal. First-tier Tribunal Judge Burns dismissed her appeal for reasons explained in his determination promulgated on 28 May 2014. The appellant filed grounds of appeal to the Upper Tribunal. The ECO filed a response to the grant of permission, dated 22 July 2014. The Upper Tribunal issued a note and directions on 27 October 2014. The case then came before me.

The sponsor is Mr A Kiedthy, the appellant�s father. There is on file an e-mail from him dated 5 December 2014 asking if he may represent his daughter, because the previous representatives no longer act in the case and for financial reasons he has been unable to arrange other legal representation. He was present on 7 January 2015. Mrs M O�Brien, Senior Home Office Presenting Officer, appeared for the respondent.

Regarding the letter from Mr Ben Shapaye, the document questioned in the First-tier Tribunal, the sponsor had written to the Upper Tribunal on 11 December 2014. His letter says that he has been able to obtain confirmation from the Chief Administrator of the Coast Provincial General Hospital in Mombasa that Mr Ben Shapaye works there as a Registered Clinical Officer who is allowed to carry out limited medical procedures. The letter attaches a copy of that confirmation of the Chief Administrator by way of a printout as it was received by e-mail.

The attachment is a letter dated 8 December 2014 from Coast Provincial General Hospital, signed by the Chief Administrator. This states that Mr Ben Shapaye is a Registered Clinical Officer working in the Accident and Emergency Department: �Clinical Officers are legally allowed to do limited medical practice and perform certain specified minor surgical procedures. They are NOT allowed to use the title �Doctor� and are not allowed to write medical reports.�

In response Mrs O�Brien said that the letter now tendered was not admissible to show error of law in the First-tier Tribunal, and in any event it did not add significantly to the information which was before that Tribunal, which was entitled to conclude as it did.